Did Zane and GES Change the Gospel? NO! Workshop GES2010 Conference - by Don Reiher
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Did Zane and GES change the Gospel? NO! Workshop GES2010 Conference - by Don Reiher Introduction Unless you have been living under a rock the last 10 years, you are familiar with the conflict over a supposed "Crossless" or "Promise-Only" Gospel, veered off into recently by Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and others in GES. In Partners in Grace, October 2007, Bob W. stated “We have not veered, nor are we veering, from the purpose and direction we set over 20 years ago. We continue to promote the message that the Lord Jesus guarantees everlasting life that can never be lost to all who simply believe in Him for it (e.g., John 3:16; 5:24; 6:35). This was our message in 1986 and it remains our message today. Since this is the message that the Lord Jesus Himself proclaimed, we are not free to adopt any other position.” There are several key players who have taken the lead in the accusations of a "Crossless Gospel" since 2005. Most of these key people claim to have left GES because of this radical shift in doctrine. Many of those who have left claim they were part of GES from the beginning; claim to have been associates with Zane and/or Bob and claim they spoke with Zane and/or Bob, about these concerns. I asked several people about these attempts to talk with Zane and/or Bob, and it is not clear to me whether or not discussions took place where genuine dialogue could actually occur. A common response I heard went something like, “I asked Zane to clarify what he said about people not needing to believe in the Deity of Christ, or the Cross to be saved in the 2 talks, and Zane told me that he meant exactly what he said in the papers.” I think that Zane assumed that everyone who asked him this question understood what his main point was. With all due respect to Zane, I think it is obvious that most people did not understand. Some people who thought Zane had changed the Gospel actually never really understood his position all along! These people convinced others who convinced others, and the whole situation spiraled out of control. Nevertheless, the alleged radical shift is that Zane and Bob and everyone in GES had PREVIOUSLY believed that in order to be saved, a person had to believe in 3, 4 or 5 elements such as the Deity of Christ, and/or the death and resurrection of Christ as the OBJECT of faith, at the moment of saving faith, in addition to believing in the PERSON of Christ alone as the OBJECT of our faith. In talking to those accusing Bob and Zane of a “reductionistic Gospel,” there was no agreement, other than that Bob and Zane are wrong about a “core” minimum. It was not clear exactly what a person HAS to believe in, in addition to believing in the PERSON of Christ alone, nor was it clear exactly what a person has to believe in Christ FOR. The most common views seem to be that a person has to believe IN the Deity, Death and Resurrection of Christ, and that one has to believe in Jesus FOR forgiveness of their sins, OR ELSE believe in Jesus FOR eternal life. They were all in agreement that the death and resurrection of Christ has to be coupled somehow with the actual Person of Christ, as the OBJECT of saving faith. The whole idea is that you have to believe in the “right Jesus” to be born again. If you don’t have the facts right about the person and work of Christ, then if you believe in this “wrong Jesus” for everlasting life, you may not be born again. In other words, at the moment of saving faith, your faith in Jesus is allegedly invalidated by the holes or flaws in your Christology at that time. Zane, Bob Wilkin and others in GES have allegedly made “shocking statements” that a person gets everlasting life the moment they believe in the historical person of Jesus Christ alone, for everlasting life, regardless of the deficiencies, flaws or holes in their Theology. According to Bob and Zane, salvation comes from faith in the Christ, spoken of in the New Testament, but the details about the person and work of Christ are not what we believe IN. Zane’s and Bob’s motives were to give people Biblical truths about the person and work of Christ (the basis) until they get to the tipping point where they believe in the PERSON of Christ (the object) for their eternal life or salvation. At the moment they believe in Him, as the object of their faith, they are born again. No specified bare minimum level of knowledge of the basis of Christ’s offer is needed. No second step, such as “decide to put your trust in Him,” is needed. Until the unbeliever gets to that sine-qua-non, or “core,” where they believe in the promise Jesus makes of everlasting life, then they are not yet born again. For some people the Holy Spirit may take a matter of minutes to get them to that point, others a matter of years. Every person is different in what it takes to get them to this “core” or sine-qua-non. This workshop will attempt to support the view that Zane and GES did not change their view in this regard. Scripture nowhere specifies an exact minimum level of doctrinal sophistication at the moment of faith. Normally, a person needs to hear the basic facts before they will believe in Jesus. However, there is no “bare minimum” of facts about the person and work of Jesus specified in Scripture that validates the moment of faith. Everyone needs a different set of truths about the person and work of Christ to bring them to the moment of faith. That was Zane’s point. I will also attempt to show that Zane, Bob and GES have not advocated a method of evangelism of giving people only a “Bare Minimum” mini-Gospel (such as a 6 word statement) with no doctrinal support. A. Objective My objective is to demonstrate that Zane and GES have not recently crossed over into a so-called "Crossless" or "Promise-Only" Gospel. After doing careful research, I believe the evidence clearly shows that Zane and GES have always held to the view that believing in the historical person of Jesus Christ alone, spoken of in the New Testament, for everlasting life was always the goal, the core, or sine-qua-non that a believer should have in mind during evangelistic presentations. This never changed. Other information about the basis for Christ's offer, what is generally known as facts of "The Gospel" (including the Cross, unless they are church goers and already believe Jesus died on the cross) is given until the evangelist senses God the Holy Spirit has moved the hearer to the "tipping point" where they are convinced (believe) the core message of faith in the historical person of Jesus Christ as the guarantor of everlasting life. B. Goals 1. I want to show that Zane's deserted island illustration in his message “How to Lead People to Christ Part 1,” and related statements about how a person does not have to have detailed knowledge of who Christ was and what He did, have been taken out of context, and blown out of proportion. In fact, Zane’s opponents seem to believe that the illustration was the core of what Zane was saying, and one opponent in particular spends a large amount of time speculating and analyzing how the person on the island could NOT be born again. Zane’s actual point was that a person is born again by faith in the right Jesus (the one in the Bible) for the right thing (everlasting life). His point was that a detailed knowledge of the person and work of Christ was not demonstrated by the people Jesus evangelized in the NT, and therefore, it is not needed today. All of the converts in the New Testament had the person of Jesus as the object of their faith, and they were born again, irregardless of deficiencies, flaws or holes in their Theology. 2. I want to provide some good examples, gleaned from spending many hours listening to Zane's messages, that demonstrates Zane’s main point: our objective, in evangelistic encounters with unbelievers, is to lead people to faith in the person of Jesus Christ alone, and not to believe in the person of Christ PLUS some set of FACTS about Jesus Christ as the OBJECT of faith. The “normal” context of this belief in the person of Christ, as the sole object of our faith, is a careful presentation of the Biblical truths about who Jesus was, and what He did to provide the offer of eternal life as a free gift to us. Zane clearly stated that the Cross and Resurrection of Christ are the normal context that we should present in order to “move a person increasingly toward faith in the Person of Christ.” 3. I want to point out the needlessly harsh and divisive nature of the accusations being made are often based upon faulty citations. We need to take care WE don't take the statements of others out of context, and falsely represent them either. 4. I want to stress the fact that Zane's insistence upon a "Saving Message," "a core," or sine-qua-non {my preference} was based upon a hermeneutical methodology which is legitimate and consistent with what Zane has taught all along.